Gujarat High Court
SCR.A/1583/1996 of SANTOSHKUMAR MOTIRAM Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 10 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1583 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1583 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- SANTOSHKUMAR MOTIRAMVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL for Petitioner
Mr.M.R. Anand, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, with L.R. Pujari, Addl. P.P., for Respondent No. 1
SERVED for Respondent No. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE G.D.KAMAT Date of decision: 10/12/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Prisoner Santoshkumar Motiram prayed for his release on furlough, which was due to him in May, 1996. The Prison Authorities, it appears, were inclined to grant the furlough, but the applicant could not furnish surety. The Police report, when sought, was also adverse against the petitioner, in as much as, it stated that there is an apprehension of breach of peace in the event petitioner is released at Surat, where the offence had taken place. The applicant is, admittedly, convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. In my view, the grievance can hardly be now entertained in the matter of furlough having become due in 1996. We are at the end of the year 1996 and it is open to the petitioner to apply for furlough in the coming year and the Jail authorities are directed to consider his application with due sympathy having regard to the Rules in the field. Application accordingly is disposed of. Rule is discharged.
*****
(apj)